As almost everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees, climate change is continuous, accompanied by associated temperature changes. Based on the common measurement techniques utilized, over the last two decades the globe has warmed.

However, with that said, the last 15 years of global warming has really not been too impressive - so unimpressive, that scientists are debating speculating what happened to it.

In fact, when examining the moving 15-year temperature changes over the last two decades, the NASA research indicates (despite the gigantic modern human CO2 emissions) that pre-1950 global temperature changes were greater.

The adjacent chart plots 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature changes (i.e. differences) of the two decades 1924-1944 (starting July 1924, ending June 1944); and plots the 180-month temperature changes of the two decades from July 1994 to June 2014.

As the chart indicates, both periods have similarities, but the greatest long-term global warming took place prior to 1950. The linear trends on the charts denote the continuing acceleration of 15-year warming (red straight line) for the pre-1950 era, versus the decelerating trend of our current times (green straight line), as reported by NASA scientists.

And, as can be observed, both the long-term warming and cooling extremes were greater during the pre-1950 decades. Confirming the pre-1950 weather/climate extremes is rather easy - just read the headlines from that era.

Conclusion: Modern climate and temperature change is somewhat tepid when compared to the natural extreme changes during the 1930s and 1940s. It would seem that human CO2 emissions are not causing unprecedented, accelerating extremes in modern weather and climate over recent 15-year spans, and may actually be dampening the extremes when compared to the past.

This alone should falsify the man made CO2, global warming hypothesis. No its not a theory. No its not a law. Its a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to examination. Clearly.

Fools who know little about science spout off to show just how little it is they do know. It would be pitiful if they did not revel in their ignorance.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

During the last three years, since 2011, the ice around Antarctica has been growing, in most seasons, more than during any similar periods of the satellite era where we have that data. At first, the climate catastrophists ignored this phenomenon. When that became embarrassingly inconvenient, they began to blame it on instrument problems.

Quote:

Though the temperature trend in the last 35 years is only slightly cooler, the ice has increased dramatically.

Yes, fence sitters its come down to this. Ever wonder what could happen if you spend your adult life considering the wild claims tossed up against a wall by the Cultists hoping something will stick. This is it.

HALL: Take me through this process of, I jokingly said, are there a lot of brownies passed around when writing something like this. How does someone create something as original as this?

LEVIN: You know we just felt it was time that the world was alerted to the perils of global warming and bio media-ology, so just the matter of doing our research and getting the facts out to everybody.

HALL: Look at, this can happen.

LEVIN: Absolutely it could happen.

Fence sitters this is so ridiculous its laughable. But, the global warming hysteria is to be promoted at all costs. This is why the Cultists are having trouble convincing people.

Yes, fence sitters its come down to this. Ever wonder what could happen if you spend your adult life considering the wild claims tossed up against a wall by the Cultists hoping something will stick. This is it.

HALL: Take me through this process of, I jokingly said, are there a lot of brownies passed around when writing something like this. How does someone create something as original as this?

LEVIN: You know we just felt it was time that the world was alerted to the perils of global warming and bio media-ology, so just the matter of doing our research and getting the facts out to everybody.

HALL: Look at, this can happen.

LEVIN: Absolutely it could happen.

Fence sitters this is so ridiculous its laughable. But, the global warming hysteria is to be promoted at all costs. This is why the Cultists are having trouble convincing people.

This would be why one does not get one's science information from a political blog who in turn is using a film maker's interview ....... THAT is so ridiculoous that it is sad because you belived it.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’

Quote:

'Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species...It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.'

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming...When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.'

Warnings about ocean acidification are completely misleading – and deliberately so

By Rosco Mac

Firstly, carbon dioxide in water is a very weak acid, whilst the ocean is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8. The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce that pH will not come from the atmosphere – there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference.

The mass of the oceans is 268 times the mass of the atmosphere

I can say this with confidence because the mass of the oceans is 268 times the mass of the atmosphere, and CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that.

No honest chemist would claim the dissolving of the entire atmospheric mass of CO2 at once would make much difference to the pH of the oceans.

Warnings about ocean acidification are completely misleading – and deliberately so

By Rosco Mac

Firstly, carbon dioxide in water is a very weak acid, whilst the ocean is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8. The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce that pH will not come from the atmosphere – there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference.

The mass of the oceans is 268 times the mass of the atmosphere

I can say this with confidence because the mass of the oceans is 268 times the mass of the atmosphere, and CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that.

No honest chemist would claim the dissolving of the entire atmospheric mass of CO2 at once would make much difference to the pH of the oceans.

No honest chemist would ignore the fact there has been more carbon released from fossil fuels than is currently in the atmosphere either. I suppose that is why this claim of "misleading" is based on a misrepresentation of the facts ... or what is commonly called a "lie".

The diversion of mass is totally a red herring since the atmophere is primarily nitrogen and water is primarily oxygen, the mass difference between the two means nothing when discussing the carbon affect.

The attempt to ignore the chemistry of carbon in seawater is also beyond an attempt to mislead. The change in pH is measured not assumed nor calculated.

When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Catastrophe Canceled: Per Physics, The "Powerful" CO2 Emissions Prove To Be Trace Gas Without Power

CAGW alarmists can no longer deny the physics and the inconvenient climate empirical records...the feared trace gas CO2 is proving to be a toothless boogieman...tipping point global warming is off the agenda due to ever lower CO2 sensitivity.....

Quote:

This most recent article elaborates even further on the ever-sooner trivial CO2 influence, which the author summarizes in this manner:

===>"The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile."

Catastrophe Canceled: Per Physics, The "Powerful" CO2 Emissions Prove To Be Trace Gas Without Power

CAGW alarmists can no longer deny the physics and the inconvenient climate empirical records...the feared trace gas CO2 is proving to be a toothless boogieman...tipping point global warming is off the agenda due to ever lower CO2 sensitivity.....

Quote:

This most recent article elaborates even further on the ever-sooner trivial CO2 influence, which the author summarizes in this manner:

===>"The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile."

Ahh a blog reference to the well respected peer reviewed scientific publication .... errrr other blog by a former TV weatherman .... on climate change.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Nothing is more fundamental to the scientific method than the rule that we must adjust our hypotheses to fit the data. Adjusting the data to fit the hypothesis is an academic/scientific crime no matter how plush the funding.

Congratulations to The Australian again for taking the hard road and reporting controversial, hot, documented problems, that few in the Australian media dare to investigate.

How accurate are our national climate datasets when some adjustments turn entire long stable records from cooling trends to warming ones (or visa versa)? Do the headlines of “hottest ever record” (reported to a tenth of a degree) mean much if thermometer data sometimes needs to be dramatically changed 60 years after being recorded?

One of the most extreme examples is a thermometer station in Amberley, Queensland where a cooling trend in minima of 1C per century has been homogenized and become a warming trend of 2.5C per century. This is a station at an airforce base that has no recorded move since 1941, nor had a change in instrumentation. It is a well-maintained site near a perimeter fence, yet the homogenisation process produces a remarkable transformation of the original records, and rather begs the question of how accurately we know Australian trends at all when the thermometers are seemingly so bad at recording the real temperature of an area. Ken Stewart was the first to notice this anomaly and many others when he compared the raw data to the new, adjusted ACORN data set. Jennifer Marohasy picked it up, and investigated it and 30 or so other stations. In Rutherglen in Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35C became a warming trend of +1.73C. She raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.

Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what “record” temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in The Weekend Australian.

Fence sitters the Cultists can't win if they tell the truth. Problem is they aren't winning by lying either.

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.

Milton can post blog information which is merely what someone .... anyone .... can type on the internet, but cannot seem to post anything from actual scientific publications, much less reputable scientific publications.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.

Here's the line in question: "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years." That is an extraordinary statement, and a position that cleverer climate deniers tend to avoid. He's not just saying that warming isn't happening, or that warming is happening but humans aren't causing it. He's flatly asserting, with no hedging whatsoever, that carbon dioxide concentrations haven't increased.

There's just one flaw with his analysis: carbon dioxide concentrations are very easy to measure!All you do is shine a beam of infrared light through an air sample, look at the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide, and then deduce the concentration using Beer's Law. It's a classic experiment in Chemistry 101.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are being measured in this manner right now (as well as with more sophisticated techniques). It's being done all the time in fact, in hundreds of places across the globe, organized by the Cooperative Air Sampling Network. Here's a chart (borrowed fromSkeptical Science, but you can make your own) comparing thousands of global measurements to the longest-running individual station, on Mauna Loa:

I literally cannot imagine a statement that would be more scientifically incorrect and humiliating than the one Professor Woodcock made. It's like saying you don't believe in the existence of cheese. And somehow I doubt such a person would be convinced if you did the scientific equivalent of slapping him across the face with a big round of Stilton.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Below is the text and attached is a file in MSWord regarding a plan of action for Chapter 2 leading up to the IPCC Meeting in Arusha, Tanzania.

June 21, 1999

Dear Lead Authors and Key Contributors,

This note is to outline a plan of action for Chapter 2 leading up to the IPCC meeting in Arusha, Tanzania to take place 1-3 September. As you know, we are now in the midst of a ?friendly review? from our colleagues of the strawman draft of our chapter. We expect to receive comments from these reviews through middle or even late July. These reviews will include some from people other than our nominated reviewers, like Sir John Houghton, from whom we have just had a brief review. Please check regularly with the Tar02.meto.gov.uk email site to cover this aspect....Cheers and thanks,

Chris and Tom

"?friendly review?" Note the warning about including reviewers outside who they normally CHOOSE to review their material. Fence sitters the climate peer review process is rigged and this proves it without a doubt. No question about it.